Psystar Winding Down Business as Web Site Goes Dark

[cyntaxerror]

That's the problem with the current generation of Mac users, they don't remember Apple's history. There's a reason the first thing Steve Jobs did when he returned as temporary CEO of Apple in 1998 was to cut out the clone market.

This same reason still applies today as Apple's market strategy hasn't changed, nor as the market.



That's the number I remember. I know it was quoted elsewhere to be around that, maybe that's not the exact number.

When Psystar started doing this, I yeld "WTF are they doing?".

reference: https://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/15/apple-wins-permanent-injunction-against-psystar/

1. Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software without authorization from the copyright holder;
2. Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software;
3. Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
4. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
5. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.

So I now take the opportunity to thank them from the bottom of my heart:

"Thank you Psystar for bringing the wraith of Apple on the OSX86 scene, due to your greed, you have sounded the death knell of the hackintosh scene. Apple now have the legal recourse to shut the OSX86 scene down as a precedent has been set (see point 2 above).

Thank you for ruining it for everyone you greedy stupid ******* (insert your own word here)"

Psystar have caused Apple to force it's hand and now it has been deemed illegal to supply software or hardware which allows non-apple hardware users access to the OS X software platform.
This includes rebel-EFi(points 3,4,5) Chameleon(points 3,4,5), ALL the distro discs(point 1), and more likely, kernel, driver and other software patches (points 3,4,5) used in the adapation of Apple's operating system.

Thank you very much.

 

[cmaier]

It has nothing to do with computing and everything to do with the current generation's strong sense of entitlement. The world owes them, they don't owe anything to the world.

If a 20 something today was to make the JFK speech, it would go like this : "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you".

Say it, brother. Every time one of these threads come up people argue something to the effect of "Apple is arrogant for not giving us the machines we want." They assume everyone has the same needs and desires and them, and that anyone who fails to cater to their whims has a character flaw.

I think it's all the "everyone's a winner" stuff they teach in school nowadays

 

[pdjudd]

That's the number I remember. I know it was quoted elsewhere to be around that, maybe that's not the exact number.

I don't remember exactly, but it was not exactly an scientific measurement - it was an estimate based on Psystar's (poor) financial abilities.

They sold 768 bits not bytes.

*Throws rotten fruit* Boo! Get off the stage!@!!

 

[cmaier]

When Psystar started doing this, I yeld "WTF are they doing?".

reference: https://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/15/apple-wins-permanent-injunction-against-psystar/

1. Copying, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or creating derivative works of plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software without authorization from the copyright holder;
2. Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting, or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software;
3. Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
4. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to plaintiff's copyrighted Mac OS X software, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers;
5. Manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively protects the rights held by plaintiff under the Copyright Act with respect to its copyrighted Mac OS X software.

So I now take the opportunity to thank them from the bottom of my heart:

"Thank you Psystar for bringing the wraith of Apple on the OSX86 scene, due to your greed, you have sounded the death knell of the hackintosh scene. Apple now have the legal recourse to shut the OSX86 scene down as a precedent has been set (see point 2 above).

Thank you for ruining it for everyone you greedy stupid ******* (insert your own word here)"

Psystar have caused Apple to force it's hand and now it has been deemed illegal to supply software or hardware which allows non-apple hardware users access to the OS X software platform.
This includes rebel-EFi(points 3,4,5) Chameleon(points 3,4,5), ALL the distro discs(point 1), and more likely, kernel, driver and other software patches (points 3,4,5) used in the adapation of Apple's operating system.

Thank you very much.

Apple won't go after the hackintoshers. First, they didn't need the precedent - there was already ample precedent that hackintoshing violates 17 USC and the EULA. They just don't want people turning theft of Apple I.P. into a business model.

 

[Gasu E.]

Isn't it a bit strange? I mean 768 is kind of a round number (3x256) in computing terms... I find it odd/funny that they sold exactly that number of computers.

3*(2**8) computers from 8=2**3 employees. Hmmm... fun with numbers.

 

[cmaier]

If these guys at EFI-X can sell a hardware dongle that allows running of OSX on generic hardware, then I don't see why Rebel EFI can't exist either.

http://expresshd.com/

Who says they can?

 

[Daschund]

The "problem" is that you prefer what apple makes but don't want to pay for it. And the alternatives are sufficiently poor, that even at their reduced prices you don't see them as valuable as Apple kit.

Exactly. They want a Ferrari, but whoaaaa!!! Kia makes a car for 1/10th of the price! Ferrari is way too damn expensive! Why the hell did the police shut down that guy that used to sell stolen Ferraris for the price of a Kia?! I mean, Ferrari should be thrilled with that, there will be a lot more Ferraris on the streets!!!!!!

 

[BubbleRaptor]

No Competition

I've been thinking about this a lot as well. I imagine a lot of entities have been interested in producing a licensed Mac clone. Up to this point, Apple's restriction of licensing their OS had not been contested in court (as far as I'm aware).

This is good news for Apple as this reaffirms their business plan. <FlameBait>Whether or not this is good news for consumers is debatable (and is presently being debated it would seem).</FlameBait>

I think what has been said is true. If I want to use the Mac OS X operating system, my only (legal) option is to buy a computer manufactured by Apple. In this sense, their is no competition.

<Rant>
I don't see any particular reason why I as a consumer should not be allowed to build my own computer with the parts I select and install whatever operating system I choose. I understand that Apple doesn't want to have to support all hardware combinations but vendors could specify which hardware is Mac compatible. Instead, my only option is to buy Apple's premium hardware. I own an early 2008 iMac and think it's a great machine; I just think, for the price, I could have built one with better specs.
</Rant>

 

[thogs_cave]

That's the problem with the current generation of Mac users, they don't remember Apple's history. There's a reason the first thing Steve Jobs did when he returned as temporary CEO of Apple in 1998 was to cut out the clone market.

Oh, I remember well - I bougt (professionally and personally) Power Computing machines as well as StarMax and Umax. I even had a PTP 225 for a time. They (especially Power Computing) were decent enough, although I did have some issues when strange hardware was added to the mix. In the end, though, I'm glad Jobs ended things and bought them out. At least for this time period in its history, Apple is doing a good job by keeping tight control of the platform while making a good part of Darwin open-source.

Why? Because that's part of the Mac experience: Unlike Windows, which has to please many masters, Macs can be tightly integrated on both the hardware and software level, resulting in a better experience overall. I run an IT department that works across multiple platforms, and the Macs are the least-serviced machines we have, with very few user problems overall. There is a reason why most of the systems and IT geeks I know have a Mac desktop or laptop around...

Don't get me wrong, I love open-source and am all for variety. I even see a purpose for Windows, as it gives me something to whine about. But in the end, my computer is a tool to get work done, and I want that tool to be as reliable and stable as possible.

 

[terraphantm]

Hackintosh is a great thing for hobbyists / enthusiasts. I have no problem with it.

But I crack up laughing every time I read how it "works perfectly except..."

Unless the definition of perfect has changed, I'm pretty sure most Hackinstoh advocates are abusing that term.

When I had mine running, it was running perfectly. It did take me a while to setup, yes, but once that was done, it ran as well as any real mac, with no features missing. I've since wiped the drive, since I really only did it for the fun of getting it to work. I got bored of it *because* it ran so well. For day to day activities I do prefer windows.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple won't go after the hackintoshers. First, they didn't need the precedent - there was already ample precedent that hackintoshing violates 17 USC and the EULA. They just don't want people turning theft of Apple I.P. into a business model.

Basically what the RIAA/MPAA should be doing. Don't go after the downloaders or small scale uploaders, go after the big commercial piracy rings, things like the Piratebay, Mininova, or even the bootleg DVD/CD industry that's so rampant.

Someone always will find a way to copy music/movies/software. If you can stop the big operations, at least you've stopped the iceberg, leaving only the tip floating around.

Apple probably don't and shouldn't care about some underground hackintosh community. They should care very much when someone tries to make money off of it though as a legitimate enterprise. There's nothing legitimate about profiting off someone else's work without properly paying them for the right to do it.

I've been thinking about this a lot as well. I imagine a lot of entities have been interested in producing a licensed Mac clone. Up to this point, Apple's restriction of licensing their OS had not been contested in court (as far as I'm aware).

Actually yes it has. Psystar brought claims against Apple that their practice was anti-competitive and that the provisions in their EULA should be thrown out. This claim was dismissed by the judge in November 2008.

 

[Rot'nApple]

Numb3rs

They had 8 employees?!?!?

If some jobs that were "saved" by the stimulus bill created more jobs than actually could be found and in districts that never existed in the first place, posted to a government website at the cost of 18 million dollars to redesign, so sure, Psystar could say it had 8 employees to let go... Heck, since we are in a time of playing fast and loose with the numbers, they could of said 80, 800 or 8,000, etc. Who'd be the wiser?!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/07/18m-being-spent-to-redesign-recoverygov-web-site.html

 

[Daschund]

It has nothing to do with computing and everything to do with the current generation's strong sense of entitlement. The world owes them, they don't owe anything to the world.

If a 20 something today was to make the JFK speech, it would go like this : "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you".

Actually it would be more like

"Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for ME"

 

[thogs_cave]

<Rant>
I don't see any particular reason why I as a consumer should not be allowed to build my own computer with the parts I select and install whatever operating system I choose.

I agree, but in our current system (as you are aware), we don't get to own the software, we license it. So we have to do what the publisher of said software wants us to do. I would prefer that, as long as I respect the copyright, I could do whatever I want in the privacy of my own home. Hey, if I buy a book, I can read it, or I may choose to burn it or fashion it into underwear. It's my choice - I own that book, just not the words within. As long as I'm keeping it myself, I should be able to legally do that with software.

 

[KnightWRX]

I agree, but in our current system (as you are aware), we don't get to own the software, we license it. So we have to do what the publisher of said software wants us to do. I would prefer that, as long as I respect the copyright, I could do whatever I want in the privacy of my own home. Hey, if I buy a book, I can read it, or I may choose to burn it or fashion it into underwear. It's my choice - I own that book, just not the words within. As long as I'm keeping it myself, I should be able to legally do that with software.

It is the same with software. You're free to take that CD and put it in the microwave, or use it as a coaster for your pint or throw it around for your dog to play catch with.

You're just not entitled to the data on the CD.

Same as a book. You own the paper and cardboard that makes up its cover and pages, you don't own the words and you're not free to do what you want with the words in the book.

 

[sesnir]

It has nothing to do with computing and everything to do with the current generation's strong sense of entitlement. The world owes them, they don't owe anything to the world.

If a 20 something today was to make the JFK speech, it would go like this : "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you".

Say it, brother. Every time one of these threads come up people argue something to the effect of "Apple is arrogant for not giving us the machines we want." They assume everyone has the same needs and desires and them, and that anyone who fails to cater to their whims has a character flaw.

I think it's all the "everyone's a winner" stuff they teach in school nowadays

Way to make bold claims about everyone born in a 10 year period of time.

You realize that every generation feels they had it tougher than the one that follows them, right?

 

[Liquorpuki]

I love Apple and what they make. I use quite a few gadgets from them.
However, I can't help but to feel sad that Apple's competition has been shut down. I know, legally they violated this and that... nevertheless, I am often taken back by the prices of Apple products and since there is no direct competition in their line, they can price things at higher level. One may argue the quality, etc., but still.

If that's what qualifies as competition, then the industry is in a sorry state

For healthy competition, all you need is a company that innovates and streamlines technology, instead of copying current trends or creating stupid business models piggybacking off Apple products.

I'd love to see competition for Apple that would actually drive better consumer products and lower prices but companies nowadays are too lazy to do that. They'd rather just react. Competition nowadays = Palm hacking a USB vendor ID so they can piggyback off iTunes. As opposed to actually developing music/mobile integration software that is so well thought-out it could actually rival iTunes.

It says a lot that Tablet Manufacturers are delaying their tablets until Apple releases theirs. They have no confidence in their engineering designs.

 

[VTMac]

I think what has been said is true. If I want to use the Mac OS X operating system, my only (legal) option is to buy a computer manufactured by Apple. In this sense, their is no competition.

Part of the problem is that is NOT the legal definition of competition. There is no law that requires an OS to be sold separately from hardware. In fact, except for the PC/Windows era, say early 80's to now, most of the time OS has been sold with hardware. You can't buy IBMs Z/OS without a mainframe, but I guess since you personally don't want that OS, IBM shouldn't be forced to sell it separately. But because you do want OSX, Apple should have too.

<Rant>
I don't see any particular reason why I as a consumer should not be allowed to build my own computer with the parts I select and install whatever operating system I choose. I understand that Apple doesn't want to have to support all hardware combinations but vendors could specify which hardware is Mac compatible. Instead, my only option is to buy Apple's premium hardware. I own an early 2008 iMac and think it's a great machine; I just think, for the price, I could have built one with better specs.
</Rant>

You can build your own machine all you want. Thousands do it everyday. What you really mean to say is that you don't like any of the available OS choices if you choose to build it yourself. But you did notice that Apple has a really cool OS that comes with your Mac, and boy oh boy you'd like to use that with our hand built hardware.

I suppose if I like the Tivo UI (I do) and I want to build my own DVR, since I can get a lot more for my money (I can), Tivo should have to decouple it from their hardware and sell it to me.

Or maybe not.

At the end of the day, it's always really the same baseless thing. "I want it bad, but I don't want to pay for it. I acknowledge there are alternatives, but they are sufficiently sucky that even at their cheaper prices, I don't want them. Instead of rightfully lamenting that Apple's competition sucks and is locked a pointless race to the bottom, I will instead choose to complain that Apple is wrong, because I want it cheaper. And after all, it's all about me in today's world."

 

[KnightWRX]

Way to make bold claims about everyone born in a 10 year period of time.

You realize that every generation feels they had it tougher than the one that follows them, right?

10 year period of time ? It's the generation born after 1985 ish. It's way longer than 10 years. The "enfant roi" generation. In fact, there's many psychological and anthropological studies about it.

And it's not about having had it tougher, it's about "strong sense of entitlement". If you'd work with a 20 something or younger (and if you are a 20 something or younger you don't realise this) you'd know how their work ethic sucks and how you're to blame for their every mistake. They just never take responsibility for their acts. It has nothing to do with me having had it tougher, it's just that I recognized that if I want something, I have to work for it.

 

[lkrupp]

I love Apple and what they make. I use quite a few gadgets from them.
However, I can't help but to feel sad that Apple's competition has been shut down. I know, legally they violated this and that... nevertheless, I am often taken back by the prices of Apple products and since there is no direct competition in their line, they can price things at higher level. One may argue the quality, etc., but still.

Ah, the discredited but now mythical Mac monopoly theory. It takes a real circuitous logical route to arrive at this conclusion but hey, have at it. I guess that makes the iPod and the iPhone monopolistic products too, eh?

 

[Daschund]

I agree, but in our current system (as you are aware), we don't get to own the software, we license it. So we have to do what the publisher of said software wants us to do. I would prefer that, as long as I respect the copyright, I could do whatever I want in the privacy of my own home. Hey, if I buy a book, I can read it, or I may choose to burn it or fashion it into underwear. It's my choice - I own that book, just not the words within. As long as I'm keeping it myself, I should be able to legally do that with software.

I think that people forget an extremely basic fact. The fact that the agreement that you are not going to install the OS into a non-Apple computer is KNOW before you buy the software (at least for everybody here on this forum and for everyone on the hackintosh community). So, if you don't agree with it, it's very simple. DON'T BUY IT!

If I really like a new shirt from Ralph Lauren, but when I go to buy it I learn that it can't be worn on the sun because it will melt down or something like this, then I have the option of either
1) Buy it and not use under the sun
or
2) Not buy it
But if I buy it and start complaining that it's absurd that I can't use it under the sun, that basically makes me a fool of myself, because I knew it before I bought it.

If you don't like the conditions that are imposed on you, then don't buy the product. If for you MacOS is worth the extra money for the Apple hardware, go ahead and buy it. If it's not, then there are plenty of PCs that are much cheaper. Do you think that if everybody thought that Apple was not worth the extra money and went to buy PCs wouldn't Apple either close the doors or cut their prices (and probably deliver a worse product)? The reason they are still in business is because it's worth the extra money.

If you want a Ferrari, you pay the price of a Ferrari. If you want a Kia, you pay the price of a Kia. But then you get a Kia and not a Ferrari.

 

[lkrupp]

That's the problem with the current generation of Mac users, they don't remember Apple's history. There's a reason the first thing Steve Jobs did when he returned as temporary CEO of Apple in 1998 was to cut out the clone market.

This same reason still applies today as Apple's market strategy hasn't changed, nor as the market.



That's the number I remember. I know it was quoted elsewhere to be around that, maybe that's not the exact number.

Actually, Apple hired some analyst to study Psystar's sales and that analyst is the one who came up with the number. This was done to estimate the monetary damage done to Apple by Psystar's actions.

 

[cmaier]

10 year period of time ? It's the generation born after 1985 ish. It's way longer than 10 years. The "enfant roi" generation. In fact, there's many psychological and anthropological studies about it.

And it's not about having had it tougher, it's about "strong sense of entitlement". If you'd work with a 20 something or younger (and if you are a 20 something or younger you don't realise this) you'd know how their work ethic sucks and how you're to blame for their every mistake. They just never take responsibility for their acts. It has nothing to do with me having had it tougher, it's just that I recognized that if I want something, I have to work for it.

My wife was a dean of admissions at a college, and she told me all about those studies. They also discuss it at various conferences. She was in charge of career counseling, and she found that in the last 5 or 6 years, there is a trend where the students think they're entitled to a job, and, once employed, entitled to come and go as they please, etc. She had to give presentations to the students teaching them that their future bosses have a different view on how things work.

 

[cmaier]

Ah, the discredited but now mythical Mac monopoly theory. It takes a real circuitous logical route to arrive at this conclusion but hey, have at it. I guess that makes the iPod and the iPhone monopolistic products too, eh?

Ignoring the fact that you don't have a monopoly if you can't set prices arbitrarily and keep demand constant. Apple sells high-priced computers and has a small market share. That's what economics tells you should happen if there is NO monopoly.

 

[Mr-Stabby]

As someone who remembers the dark days of the original Apple clones, i'm glad that they've finally been shut down and that the idea of Mac clones wasn't pushed forward legally. It goes against the whole philosophy of Mac OS X.

You do kind of wonder why they did it though, surely they KNEW they'd be in all kinds of trouble the moment they started selling those computers.